Àá½Ã¸¸ ±â´Ù·Á ÁÖ¼¼¿ä. ·ÎµùÁßÀÔ´Ï´Ù.

Á÷ÀåÁßøÁõÀÇ »ýüµÇ¸ÔÀÓ ÈƷÿ¡ ´ëÇÑ Áß±â ÃßÀû°Ë»ç ¹× ¼º°ø¿¹º¸ÁöÇ¥ ºÐ¼® Outcome and Predictors of Biofeedback Therapy for Patients with Internal Rectal Intussusception

´ëÇÑ´ëÀåÇ×¹®ÇÐȸÁö 2002³â 18±Ç 6È£ p.379 ~ 385
±Ç¼øÈ£, Ȳ¿ëÈñ, ÃÖ°ÇÇÊ,
¼Ò¼Ó »ó¼¼Á¤º¸
±Ç¼øÈ£ ( Kwon Sun-Ho ) 
¼­¿ïÀ§»ýº´¿ø ÀϹݿܰú

Ȳ¿ëÈñ ( Hwang-Young-Hee ) 
¼­¿ïÀ§»ýº´¿ø ÀϹݿܰú
ÃÖ°ÇÇÊ ( Choi Gun-Phil ) 
¼­¿ïÀ§»ýº´¿ø ÀϹݿܰú

Abstract


Purpose: The aim of this study was to determine the outcome and identify predictors of success of biofeedback therapy for patients with internal rectal intussusception.

Methods: Twenty-one patients (median age. 54 years, 15 female, 6 male) diagnosed with internal rectal intussusception by using cinedefecography were evaluated by standardized questionnaire, before, immediately after treatment, and at follow-up. Clinical bowel symptoms and anorectal physiological studies were also analyzed.

Results: Follow up (median: 15, range 2¡­24 months) results were evaluated by an independent observer in 20 patients. At post-biofeedback, 20 (95%) patients felt improvement in symptoms, including 7 (33%) with complete symptom relief. At follow-up, 17 (85%) patients felt improvement in symptoms, including 7 (35%) with complete symptom relief. There was a significant reduction in difficult defecation (from 90 to 29, 10 percent, from pre-biofeedback to post-biofeedback, and at follow up respectively; P£¼0.001), sensation of incomplete defecation (from 90 to 24, 35 percent; P£¼0.001), enema use (from 29 to 0, 0 percent; P£¼0.01), and anal pain (from 19 to 0, 0 percent; P£¼0.05). Digitation (from 19 to 0 percent, from pre- biofeedback to at follow up; P£¼0.05) and laxative use (from 29 to 5 percent; P£¼0.05) were also decreased. Normal spontaneous bowel movement was increased from 52 percent, at pre-biofeedback to 86 percent, at post- biofeedback (P£¼0.05), 95 perc ent at follow up (P£¼0.005). Low bowel frequency, at pre-biofeedback (P£¼0.01), and hard stool (P£¼0.05) predicted poor outcome. Long puborectalis length during push (P£¼0.05) and dynamic descent (P£¼0.05) on defecography also predicted poor outcome. Low electrical activities of puborectalis and anal sphincter muscle during rest (P£¼0.001), squeeze (P£¼0.01) and push (P£¼0.005) on pre-biofeedback electromyography were related to poor outcome. No patient developed full rectal prolapse during follow up.

Conclusions: Biofeedback is an effective option and should be considered as the first line therapy especially for patients that don¡¯t have low bowel frequency, long puborectalis during push, and dynamic descent before treatment.

Å°¿öµå

Á÷ÀåÁßøÁõ;º¯ºñ;»ýüµÇ¸ÔÀÓ ÈÆ·Ã
Intussusception;Constipation;Biofeedback

¿ø¹® ¹× ¸µÅ©¾Æ¿ô Á¤º¸

  

µîÀçÀú³Î Á¤º¸

KCI
KoreaMed
KAMS